Kenney v. Baskerville , 53 F. App'x 271 ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-7283
    BRUCE E. KENNEY,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    ALTON BASKERVILLE, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-02-347-3)
    Submitted:   December 16, 2002         Decided:     December 20, 2002
    Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Bruce E. Kenney, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Kathleen Beatty Martin,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Bruce E. Kenney seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    denying relief on his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000).
    An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a
    habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues
    a certificate of appealability.   
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000).    A
    certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by
    a district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the
    denial of a constitutional right.”      
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(2) (2000).
    As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural
    grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the
    petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would
    find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the
    denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason
    would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in
    its procedural ruling.’”   Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F. 3d 676
    , 684 (4th
    Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000)), cert.
    denied, 
    122 S. Ct. 318
     (2001).        We have reviewed the record and
    conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Kenney
    has not satisfied either standard.      See Kenney v. Baskerville, No.
    CA-02-347-3 (E.D. Va. Aug. 15, 2002).         Accordingly, we deny a
    certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.      We dispense
    with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    2
    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-7283

Citation Numbers: 53 F. App'x 271

Judges: Luttig, Michael, Motz

Filed Date: 12/20/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024